Municiple Ordinances???

shop deals on amazon
Treestuff
Shop deals on ebay
Rugged made
Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
A

antigrassguy

ArboristSite Operative
Joined
Feb 22, 2006
Messages
309
Reaction score
18
Location
with cheese, brats & beer
I am posting this here in homeowners forum as rules like these effect everyone.
http://www.denvergov.org/Forestry/Ordinances/PropOrd/tabid/425728/Default.aspx
The undelined stuff is new and the stuff crossed out is well, out.
Above is a link to Denver Colo. proposed revision of their tree ordinance. My understanding is that it needed to be revised as developers were clearing lots BEFORE seeking any permits. It is also my understanding that it will be rewritten a bit more to allow for trees that pose a problem to an existing structure be exempt. IE. that cute little silver maple that was planted 3' from a building 40 years ago.

My questions to anyone:
Do you agree, or not, that laws need to be passed to avoid "random arbicide"?(kill the tree 'cause I dont like raking leaves or along these lines)
Should the government be allowed to govern what we do on private property in regards to trees?
Should property owners, in a urban environment, be allowed to make their own decision as to the fate of the trees?
Is this a loss of our freedoms?

I am curious what most think about this here as most are "tree people" and more communities are enacting these types of ordinances.
 
Last edited:
as far as i'm concerned, the municipality has NO right to tell me what i can or cannot do (in regards to trees) on my property. None of their business. none nada nilch.

(that being said, please bear in mind i LIKE having trees on my property, lots of trees. Trees rock! but i get a little incensed when some pencil necked desk jockey thinks they can tell me what i cant do on my own property. )
 
SRT-Tech I understand your feelings. After thinking about this last night, the first random arbicide that I could remember was when Mr.T cut down a bunch of old oak trees at his house in the north burbs of Chicago. POed a bunch of people. For years after that the line clearance crew that I worked with had a saying with a Mr.T voice "It got bugs.. CUT 'er down". Then while doing line clearance I got to watch people when we "asked for permission" to remove or prune their trees. The range was from "sure and can ya kill those 2 over there too?" to "oh no, please no, dont harm my tree, no, no". Than I became self employed and have answered the phone call of, more than one blue hair, that wants a 200-300 year old burr oak killed and carcass hauled off because "I dont like to rake leaves". If there are no signs of decay, die back or structure issues from the ground I try to talk them out of killing something that has been in the same place since before Columbus stepped on the east shore. Or let them know that it would be cheaper to hire the kid next door for $50.00 a year to rake leaves. Or something along these lines. I have walked away from a couple of trees that could not be justified, to me, to be killed.
On the flip side I have killed alot of em.
With people moving on an average every 7 years, if 1 person buys a home and cuts down the trees and then moves in 7 years and repeats this 6-7 times in their life time and now times this by 100 or 1000, thats alot of canopy and time removed.
I am torn on this subject. I think that having rules to protect some of the oldest living residences is a good thing but I hate rules.
 
Lilac, thanks for that link. I believe that ordinance is going to be fine tuned or rewritten and not scrapped altogether. Something along the lines of allowing removal of trees that can be determined a nuisance. Trees that will cause structural damage and the such. Please help keep us updated with this and your trees as well.
 
You should try living in NJ, here most towns have tree removal premits requirments any tree over 5 dbh requires a permit to remove. In mosgt cases there is a fee in some cases per tree and in some case it requires you to replant trees to replace the ones you removed.

This is done because here trees are few and far between in many places and you just can not have people cutting down trees left and right for no good reason like I don't want to rake leaves or it blocks my view.
 
SRT-Tech said:
as far as i'm concerned, the municipality has NO right to tell me what i can or cannot do (in regards to trees) on my property. None of their business. none nada nilch.

(that being said, please bear in mind i LIKE having trees on my property, lots of trees. Trees rock! but i get a little incensed when some pencil necked desk jockey thinks they can tell me what i cant do on my own property. )
Click to expand...

X2
 
It is my personal opinion that this is a governmental/citizen relationship issue.

If you don't like the way the government (local, state, or federal) is making and enforcing laws that impact you have three choices as I see it.

1. You can move to a place who's laws you like.

2. You can run for political office and debate changes in laws that you don't like, or support those that think like you who are running for political office.

3. You can ignore the local laws and suffer the consequences.

In a democratic republic the majority often makes laws that are disliked by the minority. Sometimes the courts overturn those laws as "unconstitutional".

Bottom line is that either you get a good attorney to see if you can overturn the law or you attempt to change it by political means or you just ignore it and hope nothing happens. This is just my $.02.

Actually there is a 4th choice you can do which is to whine about it and do nothing. This seems to be the most popular strategy, a good excuse for beer drinking, aka "crying in your beer"!
 
Last edited:
I would like to verify that this is about urban tree ordinances where 1 individual can strongly impact a communities urban forest, for generations, in a very short time. Not Bob in the back 40.
 
laws

I have paid good money for the 20 acres that I own and pay taxes to own it . now if I cant manage it in the way I see fit. and have to check with the athoritys before I do something like clear brush or cut my fire wood. than will someone come buy it .
I do agree that the real nice trees out there should be left to be enjoyed by everyone and most are. But the goverment should not be able to controal what we do to our own land as long as it does not interfere with the rest of the area ( polution and the such).
 
Like it or not in an urban environment "Trees" fall into that

"But the goverment should not be able to controal what we do to our own land as long as it does not interfere with the rest of the area ( polution and the such)."

Trees serve as Pollution control, habitat for birds and other animals, an can effect the value of the houses around you. Very few place care what you do on your 20 acres, but when everyone has 1/4 acre or less and make 2 or 3 trees on the property, the removal of one of those trees is a big deal and in rare cases where you have a wood lot that might serve as the main habitat for wild life for a huge area, yeah it sucks when the government steps in and limits what you can do on your property for the better good of the rest of the public. But we give up that right all the time, in most urban area you can not burn brush piles or leaves, no bon fires, can run power equipment between 10pm and 7am, your lawn can not be more than 3 inches high or you get fined, you have to shovel your way within 24 of a snow fall, etc.

Urban living is not for everyone but when you live so close togather you have to give up some personal right inorder to get along
 
Asemaster, I agree that a good woodland management program at a private level is a good thing but I was aiming at the city lot level where if a individual decides to remove 1 or 2 mature trees it would have a effect on folks immediately around them. Whether it be shade or water or simply a aesthetic value as in line of site.
Judge, I hadnt thought of all the rules that are usually in place already as far as brush and fires and such. I especially can appreciate your last line as
"Urban living is not for everyone but when you live so close together you have to give up some personal right in order to get along" and I would add to this that we not only need to be able to get along but also make this limited space more appealing for everyone. And yes large trees are appealing, to me.

Heres a coffee moment: trees are living, organic life forms. Can we really say that we own them?
 
Multiple Oranges

Multiple Oranges......? well we don't have oranges growing here in VT... but if we did I could still cut the orange trees down on my own property... and anyone that thinks otherwise will be shot for tresspassing.....!!!!!!
 
In my opinion trees on my land should be my business, trees on your land should be my business too. :)

Seriously though. if I wanted to take a tree down that should be up to me since it's on my land. I'd be an idiot to do that, but it's my right to be an idiot too.

In Colorado it takes so long to grow a tree I think it would be nice if there was a law banning tree removal except in the case where it's damaging your home's foundation. Maybe in these cases where people are buying old houses and knocking them down to build new ugly houses there should be a requirement a certain percentage of the existing trees have to be kept.

I can tell you that if I planted new trees now, I wouldn't live long enough for them to be the height of a 2-story house. The old trees need to be left alone.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top